Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
(2008) 6 SCC 1 — 93rd Amendment validity, Article 14, Article 15(5), OBC 27% reservation, and creamy layer.
This case tests the 93rd Constitutional Amendment and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. The Court upheld the Amendment for State and aided institutions, accepted 27% OBC quota in Central Educational Institutions, said SEBC identification is not only by caste, and ordered creamy layer exclusion. Minority institutions remain outside Article 15(5).
- Is the 93rd Amendment against the basic structure of the Constitution?
- Is excluding minority educational institutions from Article 15(5) a violation of Article 14?
- Should the creamy layer be excluded from SEBC reservations?
- Article 14: Equality before law; checks arbitrariness in classification and quotas.
- 93rd Amendment (2005): Inserted Article 15(5) to allow special provisions for SEBC/SC/ST in admissions to State/State-aided/CEIs (except minority institutions).
- Central Educational Institutions Act, 2006: Operationalises reservation (including 27% for OBC) in CEIs.
- 93rd Amendment and CEI Act violate basic structure and Article 14.
- Caste cannot be the sole criterion for SEBC identification under Articles 15(4) & 15(5).
- Merit should prevail; allowing lower-merit over higher-merit is discriminatory.
- Reservation flows from constitutional duty towards SEBCs; it furthers substantive equality.
- Identification of SEBCs uses multiple indicators; not caste alone.
- 27% figure is not illegal merely for lack of fresh census granularity.
The Court upheld the 93rd Amendment for State-maintained and aided institutions. Minority educational institutions remain outside Article 15(5). The Court accepted that SEBC identification is not caste-only, so the CEI Act is not invalid on that count. It directed exclusion of the creamy layer from SEBC reservations. The 27% figure was not found illegal for want of exact population statistics.
- 93rd Amendment survives basic-structure review for State/aided institutions.
- Article 15(5) does not cover minority institutions; this exclusion is not hit by Article 14.
- SEBCs must be identified using multiple factors; not caste alone.
- Creamy layer must be excluded from SEBC quotas.
The ruling balances equality with affirmative action. It supports access for the genuinely backward, protects minority institutions’ autonomy, and keeps merit intact by removing the creamy layer.
- 93rd Amendment upheld for CEIs (State/aided).
- Minority institutions excluded from 15(5).
- SEBC identification is multi-factor.
- Creamy layer removed from benefit pool.
- 27% OBC quota not illegal per se.
Mnemonic: “BACK-TO-BASICS”
- BACK — Basic structure intact; Amendment stands.
- TO — Target only the truly backward (exclude creamy layer).
- BASICS — Minority institutions kept outside 15(5); classification is multi-factor.
| I | Issues |
|---|---|
| I | Validity of 93rd Amendment; Article 14 challenge to minority carve-out; need to exclude creamy layer. |
| R | Rules |
|---|---|
| R | Article 14 equality; Article 15(5) via 93rd Amendment; CEI Act 2006 implementing reservation. |
| A | Application |
|---|---|
| A | Amendment consistent with basic structure; minority exclusion reasonable; SEBCs identified by multiple factors; creamy layer excluded to focus benefits. |
| C | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| C | Amendment and CEI regime sustained for CEIs; creamy layer must be excluded; 27% quota not illegal on data grounds alone. |
- SEBC
- Socially and Educationally Backward Classes; identified using several indicators, not caste alone.
- Creamy Layer
- The advanced, better-off section within a backward class; excluded from reservation benefits.
- Article 15(5)
- Allows special provisions for admission in educational institutions (except minority institutions).
- Basic Structure
- Core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot damage even by amendment.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now